SRI RAMNARAYAN MILLS LTD. Vs. EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT,NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 26.4.2011, made in W.P. No. 1280 of 2011. The appellant in the present writ appeal was the petitioner in the writ petition, in W.P. No. 1280 of 2011. The writ petition had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent Tribunal, dated 29.12.2010, made in A.T.A. No. 338 (13) of 2007, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 12.4.2007.

(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition, who is the appellant in the present writ appeal, had preferred an appeal before the first respondent Tribunal, under Section 7-1 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), challenging the order passed by the second respondent, under Section 7-A of the Act.

(3.) The second respondent had been called upon to determine the status of 159 employees of the petitioner Mill and to find out if they are covered under the provisions of the Act, and if the Management of the petitioner Mill had failed to enroll the eligible employees into the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Therefore, an enquiry had been conducted, under para 26-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Based on the enquiry, the second respondent had held that the apprentices appointed, as per the certified standing orders applicable to the establishment, need not be enrolled into the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, as per paragraph 26-B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. However, he had arrived at the conclusion that the 159 apprentices appointed by the Management of the petitioner Mill were, in fact, employees engaged in the production line. The second respondent had also found that the apprentices in question were getting bonus, leave facilities, allowances etc. It had also been admitted by the representatives of the establishment, during their deposition, that the apprentices were being given the benefits on par with the other employees. As such, they were being treated as the employees of the petitioner Mill. As such, they would fall within the purview of the definition of the 'employees' under Section 2(f) of the Act.